“The Dog Head Fire broke out June 14 when U.S. Forest Service workers and a private contractor were using a giant shredder to clear forest debris in an ironic bid to prevent a blaze. The equipment, called a masticator, is believed to have thrown the spark that ignited the blaze that burned out of control for nearly two weeks.”

It is correct for the U.S. Forest Service to be taking measures to thin and clear underbrush and log where appropriate, for the purposes of fire mitigation, and we applaud those efforts. The culpability, however, is with those supervising the operation.

American Lands Council supports the empowerment of states and local governments to promote environmentally and economically beneficial management practices best suited to their unique regions and peoples.
We believe that free markets, involved citizens, and sustainable practices are the best ways to protect the environmental health of public lands, and the vegetation and wildlife they sustain.
Fishing, mountain biking, hiking and other outdoor activities are not served well by the unsustainable, hands-off federal policies which lead to catastrophic wildfires.
The following paragraph from the post sums this up quite well.
“Congress directed all timber lands shall be managed under the principles of sustained yield. “All” means exactly that. Yet the BLM has allocated a mere 19 percent of the planning area to long-term sustained yield management under the proposed plan. This is less than 17 percent of the productive capacity of these lands. This increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires, breaks the promise of the O&C Act and puts rural Oregonians at risk. We should demand better.”

Chris. I encourage you to read American Lands Council Public Policy Statement, as well as the legal analysis of Utah’s forthcoming legislation. There is no clause within our platform or existing legislation to “sell off the land.” “Federal public lands shall become state public lands to be managed in accordance with state and local plans.” Management may look different in California than it would in Idaho, for instance, but the lands stay public. The irony in your statement is that you portray transferring federally-controlled lands to entities closer to the people a “land grab.” The fact is the federal government often sells off public lands. The BLM and U.S. Forest Service ordinarily administer such sells. It’s all found in the Federal Register. The National Parks Service is currently selling advertising rights to global corporations, such as Subaru and Coca-Cola so they can place ads throughout national parks and monuments. And the greatest degree of restriction comes from federal agencies, such as the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife, which regularly close off access for myriad reasons.
Public schools in the West struggle with funding because the revenues from public lands, which states east of the Continental Divide use to fund public education, are confiscated by the federal government.
There is no existing proposal to “sell off the lands.” Nobody wants that. American Lands Council supports locally-sourced stewardship of public lands by states and local governments, with maximum citizen involvement, and minimum federal restrictions.

Mary Beth, that’s an excellent point. The National Forest Service has a yearly budget of over $5 billion, and a maintenance backlog in the hundreds of millions. It can be described as nothing but poor management and skewed priorities which prevent this federal agency from implementing common sense solutions, such as public restrooms, along these trails.

Thank you for your tremendous insight. Even lay people can discern the disaster in our national forests through simple visual observation. But your support and educated feedback are very important to us.

You are, in fact correct. American Lands Council provides education for citizens and national and state leaders to understand the nature and history of the wrongs which you cite. We urge states to pursue all avenues; Legislation, Litigation, and Negotiation as well as educating everyone about the adverse economic and environmental impacts of federal control, and, as you mention, the threats to our freedom. Please learn more by visiting the link provided below, and join our effort to bring these matters to the attention of all state legislators, governors, and United States representatives from Western states.http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_mission

Yes! I support Transferring Public Lands from the federal government to willing western states to improve public access, enhance environmental health, and restore economic productivity through local control.